3.gilgulim wrote:

4.Andrea Schonberger wrote:

5.Gilgulim wrote:

It’s not inconceivable that these dogs are gilgulim (reincarnations) of Jews who would benefit from the kaparos. The Torah says regarding non-kosher meat “throw him to the dogs.” Some m’forshim learn out from this (because it says “him” rather than “it”) that it hints that a Jewish butcher who sells non-kosher meat to Jews as if it were “kosher” will be reincarnated as a dog.

6.Milhouse wrote:

Some m’forshim learn out from this (because it says “him” rather than “it”) that it hints that a Jewish butcher who sells non-kosher meat to Jews as if it were “kosher” will be reincarnated as a dog.

What are you talking about? The Torah is not written in English, and does not say “him”. It’s written in Hebrew, in which meat is masculine, so of course the Torah refers to it as אותו. What other word could it possibly have used?

7.Response to Milhouse wrote:

To Milhouse:
See The Torah Anthology Meam Loez on Shmos 22:30. As explained therein the wording is speaking of a “treifah” which is a feminine noun. We would therefore expect the Torah to use the feminine word “osah”. Use of the masculine word “oso” alludes to the teaching that if a shochet does not slaughter animals properly, causing his fellow Jews to eat non-kosher meat, he is reincarnated as a dog and suffers accordingly. When the Torah literally states throw him (oso) to the dog it is referring to such a shochet.

8.Milhouse wrote:

This makes no sense for two reasons:

First, the verb’s object is not טריפה, which is feminine, it’s בשר, which is masculine, so אותו is the only possible word for the Torah to have used.

Second, if a shochet messes up he creates nevelos, not tereifos, so what would feeding him tereifos achieve? (I’m not sure what feeding him neveilos would achieve either, but at least there’d be some connection with his avera. But tereifos? What have they got to do with him?)

10.Response To Milhouse wrote:

11.Milhouse wrote:

קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו. If you have no answer to my objections then you must admit that what you wrote was incorrect, no matter where you read it. Why do you think the authors of Meam Loez were infallible sources?